Well, neither the Conservative party nor Labour party want it to happen.

But the referendum result clearly showed that that the electorate wanted it.

Typically, the elites would win over the people, but we will have to wait and see...

Would you care to clarify who you mean by 'elites'? Name names...

I increasingly feel that will be a second referendum, not a rerun. Reason is, the model of the future being cobbled together by the Leave campaign, increasingly resembles the Swiss / Norwegian model. This is very clearly not what the British people voted on and was not an option on the ballot paper.

Add to that the fact that 75% of our elected MPs were against Brexit.

Anything other than second, revised referendum would mean that the current options being investigated by Johnson and Gove, would be entirely undemocratic and would not be backed by the will of the electorate.

I think there's an outside chance, but still a very real possibility, that a massively revised EU-like treaty might be put forward before clause 50 is invoked, and that Britain would be very much a part of it. In such a situation a new mandate from the people may well be needed, be it in the form of a General Election or another referendum after new terms have been negotiated.

If nothing changes from the EU side I can't see how the government could refuse to abide by the referendum result, except in the case of the winning party of a new General Election doing so on a platform specifically based on remaining within the current EU.

How long did the failed EU Constitution and then Lisbon take? (given the need for referenda in many EU countries now not just Ireland as before).

What I haven't seen addressed constitutionally, is does any A50 deal need to be put to a vote given the EU Act of 2011 as amended in 2012 (obviating the otherwise need for a referendum on the Eurozone bailout).

And if so, is Parliament planning a new Act to obviate a subsequent referendum (as per 2012) as there's a risk a new referendum might muddy the waters considerably.

Anything other than second, revised referendum would mean that the current options being investigated by Johnson and Gove, would be entirely undemocratic and would not be backed by the will of the electorate.

Exactly. They need to take the UK out of the EU and ensure that whatever option they go for ensures control over immigration. Which means most likely that the UK will not be in the Single Market.

As a non-English person I find the type of language used in GB politics extremly disturbing. Is it normal for GB politicians to call eachother names and argue with eachother on the level of an 8 year old? A SVP-Stammtisch (regulars's table) in the village pub somewhere up in the alps sounds more refined than official GB politicians.
I know the trick in English language "I don't want to be rude but .." and "excuse my language but .....", (I do use the latter one when I wanna use the f-word too) but at some places what follows those terms is simply neither appropriate nor productive communication, is it?

I don't want to be cheeky but I've noticed this phenomena in the earlier days of this thread too and mentioned them as well - so is this simply the way political discussions are being held in GB? If so, I'll try to get used to it

The following 3 users would like to thank curley for this useful post:

I increasingly feel that will be a second referendum, not a rerun. Reason is, the model of the future being cobbled together by the Leave campaign, increasingly resembles the Swiss / Norwegian model. This is very clearly not what the British people voted on and was not an option on the ballot paper.

Add to that the fact that 75% of our elected MPs were against Brexit.

Anything other than second, revised referendum would mean that the current options being investigated by Johnson and Gove, would be entirely undemocratic and would not be backed by the will of the electorate.

I think they might not even go that far (a second referendum) and simply jiggle it around so that there is no effect. If you called a second referendum then the Leavers would still be furious. if you did something a bit smarter like had a new election, won and then said that referendum result last time was a mistake by the previous parliament, things have changed, let the past be the past etc you could force it through. People would be annoyed, for sure, but as you say in the end the MP's hold the power, not the people.

Is it normal for GB politicians to call eachother names and argue with eachother on the level of an 8 year old?

From what I've understood, this is just a show. The real work is done behind the scene in a more civilized manner. The danger of that system is of course that people watching that in the media mistake this for the real political work. But when the journalists are not there, they all like each other as gentlemen and ladies.

Dear Brits, did I get that wrong? Open to being corrected, no problem. I might be naively optimistic about your country men in politics.

As a non-English person I find the type of language used in GB politics extremly disturbing. Is it normal for GB politicians to call eachother names and argue with eachother on the level of an 8 year old? A SVP-Stammtisch (regulars's table) in the village pub somewhere up in the alps sounds more refined than official GB politicians.
I know the trick in English language "I don't want to be rude but .." and "excuse my language but .....", (I do use the latter one when I wanna use the f-word too) but at some places what follows those terms is simply neither appropriate nor productive communication, is it?

I don't want to be cheeky but I've noticed this phenomena in the earlier days of this thread too and mentioned them as well - so is this simply the way political discussions are being held in GB? If so, I'll try to get used to it

For Farage to make the comments he made about someone's looks is utterly contemptible and disgusting- truly But sadly common in UK politics.

People would be annoyed, for sure, but as you say in the end the MP's hold the power, not the people.

You're right of course.

But MPs should want there to be at least some pretence of the people actually wielding some power.

It is the very feeling that conventional politics doesn't change anything and doesn't care what ordinary people think and that all the old big parties are in cahoots anyway that is actually fueling the growth of extremist movements.

From what I've understood, this is just a show. The real work is done behind the scene in a more civilized manner. The danger of that system is of course that people watching that in the media mistake this for the real political work. But when the journalists are not there, they all like each other as gentlemen and ladies.

Dear Brits, did I get that wrong? Open to being corrected, no problem. I might be naively optimistic about your country men in politics.

But MPs should want there to be at least some pretence of the people actually wielding some power.

It is the very feeling that conventional politics doesn't change anything and doesn't care what ordinary people think and that all the old big parties are in cahoots anyway that is actually fueling the growth of extremist movements.

Yes, note I dont think its necessarily a good thing, but I think it might be the thing that happens, which does raise the question about whether we ever have a vote on anything really. during the next election they will all lie through the teeth, as they did last time on school fees, protecting the nhs, student loans blah blah. get in government they dont give a toss.

If we are in a new world where we just listen to the electorate but do not follow their wishes, then I think we re-classify ourselves under the same banner as Zimbabwe, but its my personal thought only.

Not at all. No German politician would dare talking like that in public, the few times this happens, the guy was eaten alive by the press and the Stammtische all over the country the day after. France is the country of "petites phrases", smart-ass comments with double entendre and sarcastic allusions. It feeds the press but it's by no mean vulgar.

Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

If I was the EU and the British government begged me to let them stay because they don't want to respect the British people's will, I would make them do a second referendum first.
Otherwise it would be very easy for any populist all over Europe to say that the EU does not respect the will of the people.

The political cost of not respecting the will of the people should fall completely on the British government, whoever it is.

Not at all. No German politician would dare talking like that in public, the few times this happens, the guy was eaten alive by the press and the Stammtische all over the country the day after. France is the country of "petites phrases", smart-ass comments with double entendre and sarcastic allusions. It feeds the press but it's by no mean vulgar.

And in Turkey and Greece they have fist fights in Parliament.

Today's news
"British fishermen have been warned that, despite the promises made by the leave campaign, they cannot expect to be granted greater catches after the UK leaves the European Union, and they may face increased economic turmoil."

If I was the EU and the British government begged me to let them stay because they don't want to respect the British people's will, I would make them do a second referendum first.
Otherwise it would be very easy for any populist all over Europe to say that the EU does not respect the will of the people.

The political cost of not respecting the will of the people should fall completely on the British government, whoever it is.

Not really, there are multiple precedents, for instance danish voters refusing the Euro.